lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [External] Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: fix broken bandwidth control with nohz_full
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:40:25PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:

> > NOHZ_FULL is for use-cases that 'never' intend to go into the kernel,
> > your use-case actively relies on going into the kernel. Hence the
> > confusion.
>
> In fact, I put a testcase at the end of git message, in which only run
> a userspace loop workload:
>
> cd /sys/fs/cgroup
> echo "+cpu" > cgroup.subtree_control
>
> mkdir test
> echo "105000 100000" > test/cpu.max
>
> echo $$ > test/cgroup.procs
> taskset -c 1 bash -c "while true; do let i++; done" --> will be throttled

Ofcourse.. I'm arguing that bandiwdth control and NOHZ_FULL are somewhat
mutually exclusive, use-case wise. So I really don't get why you'd want
them both.

NOHZ_FULL says, "I 'never' intend to go to the kernel"

bandwidth control says: "I expect to be sharing the system and must be
interrupted to not consume too much time", which very much implies: "I
will go into the kernel".

The trade-off we make to make NOHZ_FULL work, makes system enter/exit
*far* more expensive. There's also people asking to outright kill a task
that causes entry under NOHZ_FULL.

So yes, you can configure it, but why does it make sense?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-28 17:57    [W:0.085 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site